Nevertheless, they’re the same rules for everyone playing.
The thing is, the rules changed seven months before the election, not after. Everyone involved was supposed to know how things worked. And the results are based on actual numbers, not subjective judgment. It’s not, hmm, I think the Cruz supporters were louder than the Trump supporters.
Sounds like what a head of state would have to deal with on the world stage.
(Or be an excuse-making whiner about. Could go either way, really.)
Did John Locke have a coherent ideology?
Did Thomas Jefferson have a coherent ideology?
Did Alexander Hamilton have a coherent ideology?
Did John Stuart Mill have a coherent ideology?
Did Abraham Lincoln have a coherent ideology?
Did Franklin D. Roosevelt have a coherent ideology? (Not quite, in his case, but more so than Trump has.)
Did John Rawls have a coherent ideology?
“We’re in deep shit. Get me a shovel.”
You may be talking about Trumps specific (and incoherent) quote above in response to some specific recent rules or delegate flail I’m not paying attention to.
I’m talking about the fact that the 2016 convention’s rules do not exist at the moment, have not existed at all during the primary season, and will be invented *ab initio *as the convention begins and before the nominating process begins. Which is after all the campaigning and voting and vote-counting and delegate selection and … are complete. IOW, after all the scoring plays but before the winner is announced.
To be sure, there’s a historical tendency for the rules this time to be minor tweaks to the rules from last time.
But that’s a tendency most trustworthy when not under strain. IOW, it’s brittle. As we saw with the *8 state majority *rule inserted last time. And if ever there was a convention to try men’s souls and offer rewards for breaking with the old rules, this is it.
Oh, sorry…we were just talking about the CO delegate thing.
Hey that was you…you switched topics on me. 
The difference being that the game doesn’t even start until after the voting is over. The voting part is really more like a pre-game show, with fight songs, titties and pom-poms. Neither has much to do with the outcome of the game.
“Denies cultural stagnation.
Uses fifty year old leftist trope in next sentence.”
Someone else can find the right picture to make the meme with. I think it’s a walrus or something.
You mean #3444? That was a joke…FDR’s ideology.
I have to admit that was pretty funny.
So what? It is doubtlessly true that caucuses, conventions, superdelegates, and so forth are all abridgements of Democracy and archaic relics of a more inegalitarian time. If TRUMP helps undermine this system and pushes us towards more straight-forward primaries with delegates being apportioned on the basis of the winner (or better yet get rid of delegates otherwise), he will be a progressive force in American politics in yet another way.
I see this over and over again, and I’ve been meaning to correct it, but just hadn’t gotten around to it. This is a republic and representative democracy, not a true democracy.
The President Trump scenario might satisfy some anarchical impulse for you, but there is by no means any guarantee that it will change the electoral system. It’s really not worth finding out, either.
“This is a republic not a democracy” line is used by the most reactionary and piggish Tories to oppose any attempt at majoritarian politics with archaic nonsense such as the filibuster etc. You do qualify this by noting that America is a “representative democracy” and I agree with that, which is why we need to democratize our Presidential nomination process so that our Presidential nominees are actually representative of the will of the Party voters.
Considering how rotten America’s socioeconomic system is at its core at this point and how it has betrayed the interests of the national community, I’m willing to support anything that breaks the status quo be it TRUMP or Sanders.
Sorry 'bout that. It wasn’t a deliberate head-fake. I just wasn’t paying close enough attention. 
Well, no shit, Sherlock. You think that hasn’t been pointed out once or twice on this board sometime before you joined?
There are a lot of people that believe that we should be a true democracy and make arguments to that effect. There are a lot of people who argue that our choice of representatives should be made in a more transparently democratic manner. Pointing out that we’re not a true democracy doesn’t do much to counter their arguments.
Yeah I’ll just rush right out and read the entire library of threads now, shall I?
Anyway, this whole thing is moot. As Sen. Robert Risch points out, parties are individual, private organizations, from national to state, county, and some even precinct. They make their own rules which have nothing to do with the ‘will of the people.’ It’s organized sort of like the NFL (though more like a tree) with the national GOP basically being the league office, promulgating some policies through the lower levels but not controlling individual chapters’ rules.
You do realize you are using the exact same argument used by segregationist Dixiecrats to justify racially exclusive primaries in the Jim Crow South, right?
No, but you should quit acting like you’re the most knowledgeable person who has ever posted here.
Who?
You can paint it however you like, I’m not ‘justifying’ anything. I’m communicating what the reality is. Deal with it.
My bad…James Risch (R-ID), member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Yes, but this reality can be changed and it has changed. Presidential nomination processes have changed greatly from the past when there was no semblance of a democratic primary process and instead candidates were selected by party elites.